|
Lobok posted:That's funny but what I'm really thinking about is how that first one treats the Lantern power like magic. In what way is it not magic?
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:In what way is it not magic? It has rules based in pseudo-science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:In what way is it not magic? Isn't Lantern stuff about creating stuff, vs general alteration? Evocation, not transmutation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Isn't Lantern stuff about creating stuff, vs general alteration? Evocation, not transmutation? Current comics the rings have clearly defined and hard set rules for what they can do, there’s definitely an internal logic that (should be) dictating their use. Golden/silver age they were basically magic wishing rings that could do whatever insane contrivance a story necessitated, like time travel or making an envelope that Hal Jordan could fit into so that he could be mailed to the villain’s lair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:In what way is it not magic? It's magic to us but I mean I've never seen a GL fight treated as a sorcerer fight like that where one GL can directly change the other's constructs. The other two ideas Jud has there are more typical, where the Lantern is creating something to resist or protect against an opponent's constructs. Not like I've an encyclopedic knowledge of all GL fights, but that stood out to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
in the cases where he makes shields and little guys, all he's doing is exerting his will over the energy directed by the other ring user. sure he's also throwing up a token construct, but the actual shape doesn't make a difference. modifying the incoming energy using his ring is just a more impressive display of willpower. it wouldn't work if it was an actual bullet but if it's two Green Lanterns shooting ring beams at each other they're basically playing catch with the same ball.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Karma Tornado posted:in the cases where he makes shields and little guys, all he's doing is exerting his will over the energy directed by the other ring user. sure he's also throwing up a token construct, but the actual shape doesn't make a difference. modifying the incoming energy using his ring is just a more impressive display of willpower. Well, I think in the context of the scene that's still problematic because the idea is that there's meant to be an escalation, and if you're right he did the most impressive thing with his first move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Sanschel posted:Current comics the rings have clearly defined and hard set rules for what they can do, there’s definitely an internal logic that (should be) dictating their use. Yeah they could make anything that was green (or yellow for Sinestro) and it actually was that thing, not just a hard light construct of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Kilowog doesn't want to let on that a new recruit absolutely smoked him with his first try and is also trying to train him to stick to the standard Green Lantern Most Complicated Possible Solution To The Problem At Hand system
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
Karma Tornado posted:Kilowog doesn't want to let on that a new recruit absolutely smoked him with his first try and is also trying to train him to stick to the standard Green Lantern Most Complicated Possible Solution To The Problem At Hand system Look, everyone in space has seen Big Laser Beam, but you have the Jolly Green Giant show up and teabag a ship's sensors or whatever and some space crooks are gonna freak out thinking they've broke some taboo or something. They're superstitious and cowardly like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Sanschel posted:GL seems like a hero you need to play straighter than either Jack Black or Ryan Reynolds, I don’t get the sense that either of them have the discipline one would need to wield the ring. I’d love the constant push for Hal as the leading man to fall by the wayside, let Guy or Kyle or any of the newer Earth lanterns be the star, the ones with personalities. DC/The movie did that annoying thing where they gave the characteristics of another younger person and force it into an older character, so we have Hal acting like Kyle and Barry acting like Wally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
The Shazam sequel is apparently making up its villains out of whole cloth, which is definitely an interesting choice, and got me thinking: what was the last superhero movie to just go "gently caress it, we'll make up a baddie"? Blade II?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
From Hell had a main protagonist that straight up didn’t exist in the books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 06:14
|
|
|
Was Sharon Stone in Catwoman based on anyone? Technically Catwoman herself was a new version. Anyway, here's the basketball scene https://youtu.be/rNlmRId2FVQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:The Shazam sequel is apparently making up its villains out of whole cloth, which is definitely an interesting choice, and got me thinking: what was the last superhero movie to just go "gently caress it, we'll make up a baddie"? Blade II? Iron Man 3 kinda sorta? I wish more superhero movies would invent baddies whole cloth. It lets comic readers actually go in blind without having to basically enter some kind of media blackout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
Not a movie but Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark had original-character-do-not-steal villain Swiss Miss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
Shazam making up a villain is weird seeing as the first movie teased Mr. Mind and then they're doing an entire other movie to set up Black Adam. So not only is it weird, it's the most dumbass thing I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Maybe the made up villain is a fake out Mr. Mind uses as a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
In general I'm against comic book movies making up characters that established characters would fit into. First off, it always reeks of CW style "we don't want to pay royalties." Second I just like seeing the characters I know on screen. I'm the guy who's still salty that they didn't just call Eckhart Bullock in Batman 1989.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:In general I'm against comic book movies making up characters that established characters would fit into. First off, it always reeks of CW style "we don't want to pay royalties." Second I just like seeing the characters I know on screen. I'm the guy who's still salty that they didn't just call Eckhart Bullock in Batman 1989. You're pretty alone there. Without media making up characters you wouldn't have Harley Quinn, Agent Coleson, Firestar, X-23, Terry McGinnis, even loving Jimmy Olson. Hell as a counterpoint wasn't Montoya introduced in the animated series? There's probably a bunch others I'm forgetting too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Shazam making up a villain is weird seeing as the first movie teased Mr. Mind and then they're doing an entire other movie to set up Black Adam. So not only is it weird, it's the most dumbass thing I've ever heard. Well, it is Warner Bros.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You're pretty alone there. Without media making up characters you wouldn't have Harley Quinn, Agent Coleson, Firestar, X-23, Terry McGinnis, even loving Jimmy Olson. Hell as a counterpoint wasn't Montoya introduced in the animated series? There's probably a bunch others I'm forgetting too. To Vince MechMahon's point though, Coulson always seemed like Jasper Sitwell with the serial numbers filed off. But then they also used that name for someone nothing like him (pointless, unless they knew from the outset he was going to be a traitor so it was misdirection).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You're pretty alone there. Without media making up characters you wouldn't have Harley Quinn, Agent Coleson, Firestar, X-23, Terry McGinnis, even loving Jimmy Olson. Hell as a counterpoint wasn't Montoya introduced in the animated series? There's probably a bunch others I'm forgetting too. Media making up new characters is different than a new character being the primary antagonist of a film. Especially for a character like Marvel who has a ton of villains available and none of them have been seen on screen that much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Media making up new characters is different than a new character being the primary antagonist of a film. Especially for a character like Marvel who has a ton of villains available and none of them have been seen on screen that much. It really isn't. That is how these characters come into being. If they execute the character well then it won't matter they didn't originate in the comics and if they execute it poorly it wouldn't be saved by naming the villain something familiar. A successful new villain could very well see themselves backported to the comics. The list of DC and Marvel comic characters is so huge that you could probably find SOMEONE to fit any potential writing niche you can think of. It's still cool to have new characters exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Marvel doesn't pay royalties anyway so that wouldn't be a motivating factor on their end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You're pretty alone there. Without media making up characters you wouldn't have Harley Quinn, Agent Coleson, Firestar, X-23, Terry McGinnis, even loving Jimmy Olson. Hell as a counterpoint wasn't Montoya introduced in the animated series? There's probably a bunch others I'm forgetting too. That's why I said roles that they would fit into. Joker didn't have a girlfriend before Harley, so she's a great addition. Same with X-23, Jimmy, Terry, and even Firestar (sure there's the torch but he's a dude). Coulson absolutely should have been named after literally any existing agent though. Same with everyone in the show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You're pretty alone there. Without media making up characters you wouldn't have [...] Agent Coleson[...] I would actually be good with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
AoS was a throwaway TV project to appease certain people. That's why they didn't get many existing comic characters at first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:That's why I said roles that they would fit into. Joker didn't have a girlfriend before Harley, so she's a great addition. Same with X-23, Jimmy, Terry, and even Firestar (sure there's the torch but he's a dude). I mean do you understand the flaw in your argument there? Firestar is fine because she is a woman instead of a man. If that's enough of a change for you to accept it than pretty much any movie villain will satisfy you because precious few of them are 1-for-1 to their comic counterparts
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:AoS was a throwaway TV project to appease certain people. That's why they didn't get many existing comic characters at first. Coulson was in the movies first though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
I mean they went with Coulson over a known shield agent so as not to spoil the big reveal at the end of the movie (yes, yes, I know you were very clever and realized what the word salad Coulson said meant before he actually said shield)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:In general I'm against comic book movies making up characters that established characters would fit into. First off, it always reeks of CW style "we don't want to pay royalties." Second I just like seeing the characters I know on screen. I'm the guy who's still salty that they didn't just call Eckhart Bullock in Batman 1989. Given Eckhart was taking payments from Gotham's crime boss then dies, I'm pretty happy that Bullock wasn't done dirty in the awful way you suggest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Given Eckhart was taking payments from Gotham's crime boss then dies, I'm pretty happy that Bullock wasn't done dirty in the awful way you suggest. They never did Bullock anyway so who cares get him up there and get whoever made him a pay day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:I mean they went with Coulson over a known shield agent so as not to spoil the big reveal at the end of the movie (yes, yes, I know you were very clever and realized what the word salad Coulson said meant before he actually said shield) Fans who know who Sitwell is wouldn't have recognized SHIELD's full name?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Fans who know who Sitwell is wouldn't have recognized SHIELD's full name? They changed the name in Iron Man, it's not the same as it was in the comics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
The did the same thing with SWORD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
i mean, i hadn't heard of sitwell before iron man but getting "shield" out of strategic homeland blah blah blah wasn't exactly a brain teaser if you catch my drift
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Coulson was in the movies first though. Okay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:They never did Bullock anyway so who cares get him up there and get whoever made him a pay day. I'd say actual fans of the character would rather not see him at all than a lovely version that doesn't do him a molecule of justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Okay? Nobody was talking about AoS. They specifically said movies. Keep up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:21
|
|